CALEA Standards Process Report of WCD Ad-hoc

1. CALEA Standards ProcessReport of WCD Ad-hoc Peter J MacLaren WCD Vice Chair Ad-hoc Chair pjmacl@nortel.com

2. Action Item from 2nd September 2004 WCD Meeting • Noting the proposal of both TR45 and the WCD meeting of September 2nd: • to refer issues relating to CALEA standards to the TIA CALEA Working Group (CWG) • to form an Ad-hoc committee to recommend how to implement • Arrange a joint meeting among External Affairs & Global Policy Department, Standards & Technology Department to discuss the proposal and the approach to implement • Launch an Ad-hoc Committee of volunteers under the leadership of Vice Chair Peter MacLaren to prepare recommendations

3. Detail of WCD Proposal(as re-drafted by Vice Chair and TIA Staff) • (The CWG Committee) would be the single policy forum for TIA CALEA/Lawfully Authorized Electronic Surveillance (LAES) policy and regulatory issues, including specifically addressing and providing guidance on policy issues arising from standards work in TR45 (and providing an appropriate venue for discussions so they are not debated at the TR-45 LAES Ad Hoc group or other subcommittees of TR-45 such as TR-45.2 or TR-45.6 in line with associated discussions at TR-45). • It would be open to all TIA members. • It would have the mandate where desired to form a sub-group of "pay-to-play" members who could choose to fund outside counsel to address NPRM or other issues on behalf of interested TIA member companies. • It would have the mandate to set up liaisons on a mutually agreed basis with CTIA to address common interests. • It would have a mandate to set up liaisons with the FBI and any other interested and relevant government agencies (e.g., DOJ, FCC, Congress, etc.). (However neither the government agencies nor CTIA would be members as such.) • It was recognized that for the actual Standards work there would be ongoing collaboration and possibly joint standards work between TR-45 and ATIS to address the various technologies, but it was NOT seen as useful to try to liaise between the new CWG and ATIS.

4. Actions Taken • Meeting held with External Affair & Global Policy Department, Standards & Technology Department, specifically with Grant Seiffert, Derek Khlopin and Dan Bart. • All endorsed the approach of preparing recommendations through the proposed ad-hoc committee. • Based on the volunteers from the September 2nd meeting the Ad-hoc committee was formed under the leadership of Vice Chair Peter MacLaren and met 5 times to produce a consensus recommendation. • The Ad-hoc Chair socialized the recommendations with interested Operators and the FBI CIU • Subsequently the Chair held two meetings with members of the CWG to prepare recommendations for implementation within the CWG • Pay-to-Pay concerns were dealt with by sub-committee of Ad-hoc led by Ray Strassburger of Nortel. (Will be reported separately.)

5. Ad-hoc participants • Cheryl Blum – Lucent • Brye Bonner – Motorola • Tim Harr – Motorola • Mark Epstein – Qualcomm (left after initial meeting) • David Crowe – Qualcomm (left after initial meetings) • Pierre Truong – Ericsson (joined at later meeting) • Ed Ehrlich – Nokia (joined at later meeting) • Leo Fitzsimon – Nokia (joined at later meeting) • Ray Strassburger – Nortel • Ron Ryan – Nortel (joined at later meeting) • Bill Belt, Derek Khlopin & Dan Bart – TIA • Peter MacLaren – Nortel and Ad-hoc chair

6. Ad-hoc Consensus Recommendation (1 of 2) • The Engineering Committee(s) (EC) should use the TIA CALEA Working Group (CWG) as a resource for guidance on questions where the EC requires inputs on whether a function is required by, or what parameters are required for, CALEA.  It is recognized that these questions will come up primarily where a capability or parameter may not be reasonably available AND/OR where there is some doubt about the CALEA requirement, and as such each question needs to be raised and resolved in its technical context. • The CWG should be prepared to answer the questions on a one EC meeting cycle basis to avoid holding up the work of the EC. • Requirements presented at Stage 1 of a proposed Standard should be reviewed by the CWG in a single meeting at a high level, before the EC considers it, to assess whether there are any obvious areas that go beyond the CALEA statute and provide guidance to the EC in this regard. Such a review could for example parse the requirements as follows: • Items that appear to fall within CALEA • Items that appear to fall outside CALEA • Items where assessment is not clear and need to be discussed in technical context

7. Ad-hoc Consensus Recommendation (2 of 2) • During the ongoing work on the proposed Standard in the EC, concerns of one or more members of an EC which are not readily resolvable at that committee are the basis for referring the matter to the CWG to avoid prolonged debate at the Engineering Committee, and ONLY the EC should raise such questions to the CWG. Typically such questions are expected to be raised at the end of each stage rather than meeting-by-meeting, unless major issues come up. • The EC should decide on a case-by-case basis at their discretion on whether to send a written question to the CWG or select and send a delegation. • The CWG should liaise with law enforcement and carriers and other relevant stakeholders where appropriate to seek their positions, to ensure that the guidance provided by the CWG to the ECs is on an inclusive basis of all relevant concerns and thus to make every effort to avoid further discussion at the EC level. • The EC should prepare a Standard that is the basis for Safe Harbor. The EC may decide that some or all additional specifications seen as NOT required for CALEA can if desired be partitioned in a manner decided by each EC for that particular standard, such as into an informative annex etc. • The role of the CWG in regard to the Safe Harbor standard should be to provide guidance as requested by the EC.

8. Socialization of Recommendations • The ad-hoc chair reviewed the draft recommendations with: • Chuck Bailey of SBC • Gerry Flynn of Verizon • Ben Levitan of Nextel • Greg Milonovich of FBI CIU • All expressed support in principle for the approach • One consistent comment was the need for the CWG to operate in an independent manner and engage all relevant stakeholders where appropriate.

9. CWG Meeting Participants • Cheryl Blum – Lucent (1st meeting only) • Brye Bonner – Motorola (1st meeting only) • Tim Harr – Motorola • Pierre Truong – Ericsson • Ed Ehrlich – Nokia • Leo Fitzsimon – Nokia • Ray Strassburger – Nortel • Ron Ryan – Nortel • Terri Brooks (2nd meeting only) • Bill Belt, Derek Khlopin & Dan Bart – TIA • Peter MacLaren – Nortel and Ad-hoc chair

10. CWG Recommendations (1 of 2) • The operational approach should be to set up a sub-committee of the CWG with membership from interested TIA members. • Legal representatives of interested member companies should be encouraged to participate. • Typically the Technical representatives should be the same individuals who attend the Engineering Committee (EC) meetings. • The sub-committee needs to be seen as being independent from the EC even though many of the members will be in common. • The sub-committee should be run as a committee of TIA members, however the interested carriers and the FBI should be invited to participate when appropriate to all or part of meetings. • To provide for an expeditious approach, the TIA members only should meet, usually by conference call, to review questions raised by the ECs and decide whether they can be directly resolved or whether a meeting involving other stakeholders is appropriate.

11. CWG Recommendations (2 of 2) • Where the committee meets to carry out an initial review of the Stage 1 requirements all appropriate stakeholders should be invited to participate for all or part of the meeting. • It should be clear to all parties that the ECs are expected to respect the guidance of the CWG sub-committee in their ongoing work. If such guidance generates further controversy at the EC, the topic should be referred back to the CWG. • The chair of the CWG sub-committee should provide feedback and explanation of the decisions reached to all interested parties ahead of any subsequent EC meetings. • A Chair must be selected who is acceptable to all stakeholders including the interested carriers and the FBI. This requirement implies that it is unlikely a representative of a TIA member would be an acceptable selection. • The viable options for the Chair are seen to include a TIA Staff member or Outside Counsel. There was a general preference for the TIA Staff member approach, however TIA staff advised that this approach was usually discouraged. It was agreed to refer the issue of Chair to the WCD and request guidance.

12. Conclusions and Recommendations • The members of TIA interested in CALEA Standards have met a total of 7 times and prepared consensus recommendations • We recommend that the WCD adopt these recommendations and invite the CWG of the Public Policy Committee to form a sub-committee to take on the role proposed and in the manner recommended • We recommend that the WCD advise the Engineering Committees that this new process is being implemented. (Already presented informally to TR45) • We seek the guidance of the WCD on appointment of an appropriate chair for the CWG sub-committee • We recommend ongoing dialog with ATIS – as already initiated by Dan Bart – to expand this process to include joint TIA-ATIS CALEA standards • We propose to disband the ad-hoc committee